• Military

• WMD Menu                           

• Introduction
• Systems
• Facilities
• Agencies
• Operations
• Countries
• Hot Documents
• News
• Reports
• Policy
• Budget
• Congress
• Links

• Intelligence
• Homeland Security
• Space

[EXCERPTS] U.S. Department of State

Daily Press Briefing

............

QUESTION: President Yeltsin has resubmitted an amended version of the START II treaty to the Duma today. As I understand it, it has American acquiescence, the amendments. Is this as cut and dried as it might seem? Do you have any comment on it?

MR. RUBIN: Well, we certainly welcome the fact that the treaty has been submitted formally to the Duma. This is a very important treaty that will establish a control system on strategic nuclear weapons and ensure that they are continuing down the path to reductions that had been started under President Reagan, President Bush, and now President Clinton, which makes the world a safer place. So we certainly think it's good news that the Russian government is one step closer to ratifying this important arms control treaty.

As far as what will happen with it next, we are not going to start popping champagne corks until we see the process move. The Russian Duma is obviously engaged in another exercise of some importance with regard to the current government, and that does make it harder for them to focus on this right away. But we are certainly hopeful that once the government issue is resolved that the Russian Duma will turn its attention to this important treaty, which we believe not only advances the national security of the United States by locking in the system of reductions in strategic nuclear arms, but also is to the advantage of the Russian side. This arms control treaty was designed to serve the national security interests of both sides, and we hope that when the Russian Duma formally considers the document they will see that as well.

QUESTION: What about the modifications though in the form submitted by the Russians to the Duma?

MR. RUBIN: Well, we haven't had a chance to see all the detailed modifications but, as a general matter, we believe that this document submission is a step in the right direction and we are now a step closer to the long-awaited ratification of this important treaty.

As far as what is done to the treaty during the consideration by the Duma, we will have to wait and see, and we are still going to hopefully get a chance to study the submission during the course of the day.

QUESTION: Well, specifically, would it be acceptable to the United States to stretch out the various timelines?

MR. RUBIN: Well, we wouldn't want to see this treaty renegotiated through the ratification process in the Duma. We have made a number of adjustments through the various protocols that were signed by President Clinton and President Yeltsin at Helsinki, and we have made a number of steps at that time that we believe are sufficient to take into account these concerns. Any further steps we wouldn't be interested in negotiating through the ratification process, and I'm not familiar with whether any particular package that has been submitted goes farther than the steps in the protocols that have already been put out.

QUESTION: On the same subject, did the Russians not consult then before making these changes?

MR. RUBIN: Again, this just came over the wires about ten minutes ago. We are trying to get the details. We are trying to give you information as quick as we can. Rather than simply telling you I have no comment until I've seen the actual submission itself, I thought I would give you a general flavor of what we think about this step.

But as far as seeing the details of what has actually been submitted, arms control treaties require careful scrutiny. They employ a large number of lawyers and technicians. Before everyone has had a chance to review these documents in detail, I would like to refrain from making any specific comments on reported adjustments and amendments.

.......

QUESTION: Can you tell us on the Pentagon reports that Hughes Electronics (inaudible) gave sensitive information to the Chinese that may have helped their missile program?

MR. RUBIN: What I can say about that is that the question of allowing American companies to launch their satellites on Chinese launchers is an obviously a very important question that bears both on our high technology capabilities in the area of satellites and the importance of promoting those high technology advantages that are inherent to the United States in an information age, as against trying to do what we can to prevent unauthorized leakage of know-how or technology during the course of those launches.

Because we are so determined to make sure that we do not provide technology transfer during such activities, we have very, very strong safeguard programs and we work very hard to make sure that those safeguards are put in effect. We also investigate this issue very carefully when we think it needs to be investigated. We have maintained a very strict policy, including these strong safeguards, to prevent the unauthorized transfer of sensitive missile technology to China. For example, the US-China agreement on satellite technology safeguards specifically precludes US companies from providing assistance to China with respect to the design, development, operation, maintenance, modification or repair of launch vehicles.

With respect to a reported report in a news report, let me say this, that that is a matter under investigation and one of the issues that is germane is the extent to which anything might or might not have harmed the national security. And so we would not want to say anything publicly that could interfere with such an ongoing investigation. Although I doubt it, I could refer you to the Justice Department for further information.

QUESTION: Jamie, this report, not the newspaper report but the report that -

MR. RUBIN: That I can't comment on?

QUESTION: The one that was allegedly shared with the Chinese to look at why the rocket malfunctioned. Can you say whether the report, just the report itself, not whether it damaged US interests, to give it to them, whether the report itself was shared with the Chinese?

MR. RUBIN: Again, the extent to which a report and which report and what part of a report may or may not have been shared with the Chinese bears directly on the question of whether harm came to US national interests and technology transfer or know-how occurred, which is the subject of an investigation which I don't want to be interfering with.

QUESTION: Who is investigating this?

MR. RUBIN: The Justice Department.

..............